Re: [boost] [program_option] allow_unregistered now works

From: Caleb Epstein (caleb.epstein_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-06 07:22:16

On 5/6/05, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Second, for 'sticky' short options, like '-cd' above, the library can break
> them in parts. Again, in example we get:
> 
>    ("-c", )
>    ("-d", )                   *
> 
> The 'c' letter is recognized, and the 'd' letter is not. I find this behaviour
> better than marking the entire '-cd' as unrecognised.

I agree that this is the desirable behavior.

> Finally, the new functionality might not work nice with long options that
> start with a single dash (allow_long_disguise style option):
> 
>    -foo
> 
> will be considered as short option '-f' with value 'oo', and never as long
> option 'foo'.

Would this only be if "f" is a registered option, or even if it is
unregistered?  I'd think in the unregistered case you'd end up with -f
and two -o's as in the -cd case above.  Whichever the case, I agree
that -foo should not be treated the same way as --foo.  But I grew up
using GNU tools, so I'm biased towards the double-dash syntax.

Overall I think this is great.  It makes it straightforward to chain
option processing across different modules.

-- 
Caleb Epstein
caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com